A generic blastocyst, several dozen cells, roughly the size of the period at the end of this sentence.
Most people would consider a Blastocyst an early stage in mammalian development, a rich field of study, perhaps a source of research material to drive potential miracles of regenerative medicine. But in the great liberal state of California a few nutburgers have another idea, and they’ve cooked some nifty framing for it:
“Human personhood is the final chapter of the Civil Rights movement,” said CCRF founder and President Walter B. Hoye II in a statement. ”It proposes commonsense values for otherwise convoluted jurisprudence. From the pre-born child, to the senior citizen facing end of life decisions, to the disabled veteran, we believe all human beings should be protected by love and by law.”
Because nothing says civil rights and small government like using the power of the State to force a rape victim to bear the rapist’s child. This ugly idea didn’t come out of nowhere, it’s a legislative template developed by a dozen extremist organizations now being introduced by purportedly small-government Teaparty Republicans in states all over the nation. The supposed motive? Why it’s all about love, dominionist style:
The Primary Mission of Personhood USA is to serve Jesus by being an Advocate for those who can not speak for themselves, the pre-born child. We serve by starting / coordinating efforts to establish legal “personhood” for pre-born children through peaceful activism, legislative efforts and ballot-access petition initiatives.
“…protected by love” seems to be a term used to replace religious motives. I had a super-Christian department chair who used this language to get his religious messages into meetings without being overtly religious. Still creeps me out to think of this guy with his Paxilated Xtain grin of love…
“Pre-born” wasn’t that what happened to Alia?
If they get going, better watch out for that nasty old Baron!!
Unintended consequences?
If the pre-born is a person, the uterus owner is forced into involuntary servitude by that person. Therefore the uterus owner can sue for emancipation under the Thirteenth Amendment. This would criminalize the fetus and require abortion as the only remedy for the involuntary servitude.
This is the legal can of worms that reasonable people have tried to avoid. But some people are not reasonable.
I’d bet the rent that their definition of “personhood” includes taking or keeping a lot of those end of life decisions out of the hands of said senior citizen (or any terminally ill adult).
@richardelguru
so blastocysts are abominations…
I’m adopted. My adoptive parents wanted me, that’s fairly self-explanatory. I know almost nothing for certain about my birth parents but I do have one undisputable data point. Because I was born just shy of two years after Roe vs. Wade was decided, I know my birth mother chose to carry me for 9 months. No one required her to do so, it was her choice.
So if I want a warm fuzzy feeling, I don’t have to think about forcing rape victims to extend their victimization by 9 months. I don’t have to look at pictures of happy toddlers and imagine I’m somehow making the world a better place by limiting or denying medical procedures to women who are not prepared to give birth, including some that would risk health complications by doing so. I don’t need to effectively outlaw in-vitro fertilization for couples having difficulty conceiving. All I have to do is think that there are at least three people who wanted me to be here and who made difficult, life-altering decisions to get me here. And I find I’m pretty okay with that.
I was adopted also. I don’t feel that gives me a veto over the choice of a rape victim to bear or not bear the rapists child.
Pre-born? Redefining reality to suit one’s prejudices. So if by “God’s will” a physical defect, accident or action by others terminates the pregnancy, the fetus will be pre-born forever? Or does the miscarriage then become the birth?
Didn’t explain well earlier… Sorry! Sometimes happens when thinking more with emotions.
The earlier post was meant to be very pro-choice. The only part of the virulent anti-choice thing I can make heads or tales of is the way they advertise by trying to get people to associate their rights stripping nonsense with fuzzy, emotionally charged imagery that tries to blatantly hijack parental instincts and pervert them to fuel a political agenda. So earlier I was basically just saying if I felt the need for emotionally charged imagery I could come up with my own and it wouldn’t be pushing someone else’s weird mysogynist political agenda.